obj_set_grid

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that 0 means 'don't change' and that it returns resulting grid sizes, but it does not mention requirements around an active schematic document, whether the change is persistent, or any failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded, and structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence conveys useful information with no evident waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter optional mutation with an output schema, the description covers parameter meanings and the return value adequately. It is slightly incomplete because no annotations exist and it does not describe preconditions or side effects of changing the active schematic grid.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so for both parameters by giving units (mils) and the important sentinel semantics (0 = don't change), which is meaningful information beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: setting snap and/or visible grid size for the active schematic. The phrase 'active schematic' helps distinguish it from PCB-oriented grid/snap tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the operation and the 'active schematic' scope, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus related tools such as pcb_snap_to_grid or other grid/UI tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.